• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

No, I said it is funny that you don't see the obvious contradiction in your supposition about liberals "not caring" about marriage...... while expanding the right to marry. You can characterize your overlooking your contradiction as "interesting", but apparently it is not "interesting" enough for you to explore.

Or interesting enough for you to comprehend the facts.
 
I mean, really, what has changed? You can't say gay marriage doesn't affect anyone other than the couple AND sociaty as a hole has changed. Gay marriage has to affect other people in order for sociatyou to be changed by it.

Anyway the Supreme Court forcing a change in law doesn't mean sociaty has move one ounce on the issue.

Society in general doesn't care about gay marriage. Polling data suggests the majority of people support the principle of gay couples getting married. Certainly there is much being said about what people see as the co-opting of the actual word "marriage", which will remain a point of contention for a large segment of the population.

In the broad picture, there have been many changes forced upon society in recent years. From issues related to education, to immigration, to government regulation. These aren't small adjustments, they are significant cultural sea changes that in many cases have been done with little to no input from society as a whole.
 
Funny, I still cant legally carry in my state. I guess now that states must recognize gay marriage, they will also have to recognize CCW's from out of state?

Funny how rights that are so important that they were specifically written into the Constitution are nullified by the government, but they manage to find other things they claim are guaranteed by the Constitution, that are not even mentioned.

But, hey, that's will never be a problem when a government does that.
 
Funny how rights that are so important that they were specifically written into the Constitution are nullified by the government, but they manage to find other things they claim are guaranteed by the Constitution, that are not even mentioned.

But, hey, that's will never be a problem when a government does that.
Which rights "specifically written into the Constitution are nullified"?
 
Which rights "specifically written into the Constitution are nullified"?

Hmmm... let's see, maybe ask the Japanese that were interned in camps if the government nullified any of their rights. Of course, there are other examples.
 
Well let's see.

One example: The liberal/progressive forces are attempting to reward illegal aliens, and in fact are promoting more to come here. This agenda is being pushed at the extreme peril of the Black Communities, who apparently aren't viewed as important, other than to gin up occasional emotional responses that will be met with nothing but platitudes from the left.

In light of everything else, how long do you think voters are going to tolerate the heavy handed actions that are being force fed to them?

I think the court is a check and balance to a system which can turn very bad. The court has kept it in place. This is a limited representative democratic republic. We vote in those who represent us. The democratic facet can turn ugly and be mob rule as Thomas Jefferson said. If I have the numbers I can keep you from getting anywhere or having any rights. The court is in place to make the final decision based on the Constitution or extrapolate from the document what it might say today if written and they fill in the meaning. In this way the document stays alive. This is necessary unless like Jefferson thought the document should be reworks periodically. The court decides and we live by the decision. Some decisions are popular and others not so much. This has maintained the status quo it can give the minorities a voice even against the numbers.
Same sex marriage began as one of these issues where no matter what LGBTQ people did they would never have enough numbers to win anything. The number of supporters did grow and eventually it turned into the court case. Same sex marriage won in court. Is it force feeding the nation? Perhaps. This is not the first time decisions like this happen. The thing is same sex marriage happened to be supported by the majority according to the poles. So I guess it is not force feeding. It made the decision for the nation which was divided by states. More states supported SSM. The nation needed equal policy and this did that. Some are unhappy but this is not force fed. The court maintained a balance. It was not heavy handed. The court against all reason elected George W. Bush President and the nation went along with this. This is not new and ground breaking for the court to make decisions like this. We only need to follow along as Americans have always done.
 
I think the court is a check and balance to a system which can turn very bad. The court has kept it in place. This is a limited representative democratic republic. We vote in those who represent us. The democratic facet can turn ugly and be mob rule as Thomas Jefferson said. If I have the numbers I can keep you from getting anywhere or having any rights. The court is in place to make the final decision based on the Constitution or extrapolate from the document what it might say today if written and they fill in the meaning. In this way the document stays alive. This is necessary unless like Jefferson thought the document should be reworks periodically. The court decides and we live by the decision. Some decisions are popular and others not so much. This has maintained the status quo it can give the minorities a voice even against the numbers.
Same sex marriage began as one of these issues where no matter what LGBTQ people did they would never have enough numbers to win anything. The number of supporters did grow and eventually it turned into the court case. Same sex marriage won in court. Is it force feeding the nation? Perhaps. This is not the first time decisions like this happen. The thing is same sex marriage happened to be supported by the majority according to the poles. So I guess it is not force feeding. It made the decision for the nation which was divided by states. More states supported SSM. The nation needed equal policy and this did that. Some are unhappy but this is not force fed. The court maintained a balance. It was not heavy handed. The court against all reason elected George W. Bush President and the nation went along with this. This is not new and ground breaking for the court to make decisions like this. We only need to follow along as Americans have always done.

I support same sex marriage, as I don't care whether two people of the same sex want to get married. And yes, polls showed this sentiment to be in the majority. Of course, those polls also painted a different picture when the question involved the use of the word "marriage". But the point is moot now.

However, you mentioned things that are more important to the masses, and I responded with an example related to immigration. Not sure why you ignored that to repeat something about SSM.

Oh, and really, liberal/progressives need to stop pushing the lie about the Supreme Court giving Bush the White House. It just makes them look ignorant and foolish. Multiple recounts by multiple sources showed Bush won. What the Supreme Court did do, however, was stop Gore and the Florida Legislature from re-writing voting laws after the vote was cast. Perhaps you could educate yourself on those facts so you won't make the same mistake again.
 
Well, there IS a difference between living with someone and being married under the law. Ask any 25 year old guy, many of whom aren't ready to commit. Under the law, married people become one, in a way. Together they pay a lower income tax rate than if they are single. One can represent the other when he becomes incapacitated. They can share insurance premiums. And so on.

In the words of the mother at the end of the movie "Blast From the Past": "No, Calvin. It's NOT the same!"

I've been married twice. The last one for longer than you may have been alive. Legally civil unions and marriage are about the same thing. The push for gay marriage wasn't about the institution of marriage. It was about gay people appearing to be as normal as everyone else in society. I've always considered it to be a non issue and now with a little luck we won't have to hear about it anymore.
 
Legally civil unions and marriage are about the same thing.


No they're not.

1. Civil Marriages are recognized across state lines, Civil Unions are not.

2. The Federal government recognizes only Civil Marriages, there is no Federal recognition of Civil Unions.


Two off the top of my head.



>>>>
 
you must be to young to have been around then, but I was. So take my word for it: this wasn't an issue anyone ever heard of until the mid to late 90s. go ask anyone alive then and they will be happy to verify that.

I asked my mom. She said you're wrong.
 
So, we selectively protect others rights, depending on cause, or item.

Of course that is true. But, it's also true that recognizing a concealed carry license and recognizing someone's marital status as recognized by another State is just not an analogous situation.
 
Of course that is true. But, it's also true that recognizing a concealed carry license and recognizing someone's marital status as recognized by another State is just not an analogous situation.


Well it would be if a State recognized some carry permits but not other based on the gender of the person holding the license.


But I don't know of any State doing that.


>>>>
 
You are the one calling for more restrictions on freedoms. That is much more in line with Middle Eastern Politics whether you accept it or not. The Constitution is and always will be the ultimate authority. It is intended to stand up to people such as yourself who would seek to restrict our freedoms (much like middle eastern countries). You are looking in a mirror and trying to deflect what is staring back.

Nice try, but no cigar for you. The constitution is not the ultimate authority anymore, the SCOTUS is. Your silly attempts to characterize me doesn't change what this has become. And you blindly refuse to recognize it. You would burn the constitution tomorrow if you thought that would get you what you want. Have your M&Ms now when you want them, and screw everyone else that comes after.
 
Yes, I'm a little confused by the several posts that claim that SCOTUS does not have the final say on interpreting the constitution

Nothing in the Constitution makes the Supreme Court the final arbiter of what it means. That idea is purely the Court's own invention. Chief Justice Marshall asserted it generally in Marbury v. Madison, and much later the Court asserted it very plainly in a 1958 civil rights case. See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18 (1958).

and the vague assertions that the SC doesn't have any way to enforce its rulings.

If you are talking about what I wrote, it was not vague, and it was not just an assertion. It is obvious that the Supreme Court has no way to enforce its rulings, as Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 78:

"The judiciary . . . can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

Is not the whole purpose of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution, and have the final say in such matters?

The people have the final say on everything in our system of government. In Lincoln's famous phrase, which he borrowed from John Wycliff, who had used it in referring to the Bible, we have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." Although only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached, the very fact that remedy is available proves the Judicial Branch is as much a servant of the people as the other two brancjes.

Are posters suggesting this ruling will prompt another such action, or series of actions? Seems unlikely at best.

That depends on what action you are referring to. Justice Scalia pointed out that dictates like this one can have no effect unless either the states choose to give them one, or the Executive Branch can force them to.

Desegregation was extremely unpopular among a certain group in society, and this same posturing was attempted then. But eventually, the ruling was enforced. In today's society, it seems an extreme stretch to think that history might repeat itself over this ruling, much less be taken any further. I suppose anything's possible, just seems highly unlikely.

No one knows whether any state will ignore this ruling. But any state could ignore it if it chose to.

Then the whole thing will blow over when sexual orientation is finally recognized as a civil right.

That is as incoherent as any of Anthony Kennedy's gobbledygook. No one's sexual orientation is a "civil right," any more than his tastes in movies, or architecture, or food. And new constitutional rights do not leap into existence by spontaneous generation, whenever a few judges decide to wave their hands.
 
Last edited:
Nice try, but no cigar for you. The constitution is not the ultimate authority anymore, the SCOTUS is. Your silly attempts to characterize me doesn't change what this has become. And you blindly refuse to recognize it. You would burn the constitution tomorrow if you thought that would get you what you want. Have your M&Ms now when you want them, and screw everyone else that comes after.

Once again you are completely wrong. Do you even know how the Constitution works? Have you read it? Have you ever taken a Conlaw course? I suggest that you do.

I have more respect for the Constitution than you will ever know. The bigots cried about the Constitution when civil rights were expanded for blacks...and the bigots are crying today. It is THEY who spit on the Constitution and the principles upon which is was founded.

People of your ilk would love to do away with the Constitution and its guarantees to return to the days when only white landowners had rights in America.....well....sorry clownboy....but that isn't ever going to happen.
 
Once again you are completely wrong. Do you even know how the Constitution works? Have you read it? Have you ever taken a Conlaw course? I suggest that you do.

I have more respect for the Constitution than you will ever know. The bigots cried about the Constitution when civil rights were expanded for blacks...and the bigots are crying today. It is THEY who spit on the Constitution and the principles upon which is was founded.

People of your ilk would love to do away with the Constitution and its guarantees to return to the days when only white landowners had rights in America.....well....sorry clownboy....but that isn't ever going to happen.

Wasn't the Constitution originally intended to protect the white landowners and not the blacks?
 
Nothing in the Constitution makes the Supreme Court the final arbiter of what it means. That idea is purely the Court's own invention. Chief Justice Marshall asserted it generally in Marbury v. Madison, and much later the Court asserted it very plainly in a 1958 civil rights case. See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18 (1958).



If you are talking about what I wrote, it was not vague, and it was not just an assertion. It is obvious that the Supreme Court has no way to enforce its rulings, as Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 78:

"The judiciary . . . can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."



The people have the final say on everything in our system of government. In Lincoln's famous phrase, which he borrowed from John Wycliff, who had used it in referring to the Bible, we have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." Although only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached, the very fact that remedy is available proves the Judicial Branch is as much a servant of the people as the other two brancjes.



That depends on what action you are referring to. Justice Scalia pointed out that dictates like this one can have no effect unless either the states choose to give them one, or the Executive Branch can force them to.



No one knows whether any state will ignore this ruling. But any state could ignore it if it chose to.



That is as incoherent as any of Anthony Kennedy's gobbledygook. No one's sexual orientation is a "civil right," any more than his tastes in movies, or architecture, or food. And new constitutional rights do not leap into existence by spontaneous generation, whenever a few judges decide to wave their hands.

Wish I could like this multiple times. Thank you.
 
Wasn't the Constitution originally intended to protect the white landowners and not the blacks?

I don't think that that was actually the intent of the Constitution...no. In theory, it didn't protect blacks, but that was a reflection of the times, not the intent of the document.
 
Once again you are completely wrong. Do you even know how the Constitution works? Have you read it? Have you ever taken a Conlaw course? I suggest that you do.

I have more respect for the Constitution than you will ever know. The bigots cried about the Constitution when civil rights were expanded for blacks...and the bigots are crying today. It is THEY who spit on the Constitution and the principles upon which is was founded.

People of your ilk would love to do away with the Constitution and its guarantees to return to the days when only white landowners had rights in America.....well....sorry clownboy....but that isn't ever going to happen.

Another failed attempt at characterization. Your take on my education and constitutional knowledge is as weak as your supposed knowledge of the constitution. You have demonstrated zero respect for the constitution and clearly have no problem ignoring it in toto as long as your desires are slaked.

That last bit of yours is highly hilarious considering you're the one taking the position that this decision is A-Okay despite the fact that the Chief of the Judicial Branch is telling you it is NOT consistent with the constitution at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom